Model comparison
Gemma 4 12B vs GLM-5.1
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated); GLM-5.1 #18 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 12B and GLM-5.1 share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Gemma 4 12B; 23 to GLM-5.1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 10
- GLM-5.1 only
- 23
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GLM-5.1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GLM-5.1 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.74 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Gemma 4 12B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 203K for GLM-5.1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemma 4 12B | Δ | GLM-5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 25.2 | GLM-5.152.3 |
| Math | Gemma 4 12B77.5 | Margin← 15.5 | GLM-5.162.0 |
| Agentic | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.165.4 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 12BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.161.3 |
| Reasoning | Gemma 4 12B43.4 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.1Not measured |
| Multimodal | Gemma 4 12B69.1 | MarginNo overlap | GLM-5.1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
AIME26
MathA 77.5%B 95.3%Winner: GLM-5.1Δ 17.8AIME26: Gemma 4 12B scored 77.5%; GLM-5.1 scored 95.3%. GLM-5.1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5.1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-5.1$1.4 input / $4.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 12BNot available | GLM-5.1Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 12B256K | GLM-5.1203K | Gemma 4 12B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 36.3% | 97.7% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 68% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 71.8% | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 37.8% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 60.11% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1257 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.2% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 78.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 78.8% | 86.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 77.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 5.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 22.0% | 40.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 75.3% | 86.8% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 14.8% | 28.0% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -51.9% | 1.9% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 16.0% | 24.2% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 80.8% | 29.4% | GLM-5.1 leads |
| HLESource | — | 52.3% | Not comparable |
MathGemma 4 12B wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 12B | GLM-5.1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 73.5% | 76.3% | GLM-5.1 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5.1?
GLM-5.1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.74 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME26, where the scores are 77.5% and 95.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5.1?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 52.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Gemma 4 12B or GLM-5.1?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 62. Inside this category, AIME26 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.